Talk:D'deridex (star)
i know this will make some people mad, but I gotta say it. Constellations are groups of stars, stars are the big burning balls of gas in the middle of a star system. The planets or other objects around said star can be named by any number of methods. BUT, the SPACE in between the star and the heliopause of the system is called the STAR SYSTEM which is a location, where a STAR is an object. The STAR is not the SYSTEM any more than my nose is my face. Go ahead Capt, get upset. I know you will. – AT2Howell 14:15, May 17, 2010 (UTC) :I don't really care what you think, but at least you're making an effort to better understand what we're writing about here. Maybe if some people who actually contribute content to this site (done that lately?) can start a reasonable discussion without making it personal (singling me out like you did), this topic would be explored in greater detail. Until then, I'll get back to work. -- Captain MKB 14:25, May 17, 2010 (UTC) I agree with AT2, in principle at least, a star is not a system, it is one item within the system. However it is also true that we would need to generate hundreds of mostly empty articles to reflect that fact if we go for two articles for each star and system. I hated when Mike started doing this system thing, but didn't kick up a fuss about it, and have since spotted that stories often refer to systems both with and without the "system" suffix; so accept it as part of ordinary and correct naming now. Think of it like this: Central London is not the entirety of the City of London, but we probably don’t need an article for both those areas, so a general London article does the job. Same for a star within a system (with the exception of stars and systems with have substantive histories, I think Sol for instance can justify two articles. --8of5 13:23, May 30, 2010 (UTC) :I'm sorry for pushing this issue but I think the prospect of two empty articles was actually hampering efforts to correctly categorize many of these articles. For example, many binaries are categorized as stars even though they are not stars, they are pairs of stars existing in a system together. :The discussion here started pointlessly, as AT2Howell was commenting on an edit I made quite some time ago where i did incorrectly annotate this article, but instead of highlighting the annotation, he made a personal attack.. :As for Sol, I thought keeping them separate would probably be prudent, but did you know that both Sol and Sol system were stubs? Now at least in combo they are fleshed out and explain each other. Before the merge, both articles were severely lacking, and I didn't see that changing anytime soon. -- Captain MKB 14:07, May 30, 2010 (UTC) Oh I agree with this system now Mike, but I can sympathise with AT2's point of view and am willing to try and explain it to him in the hope he can gain the same understanding I have. On the binary point, what is your proposal for dealing with everything in the system there? Take Epsilon Ceti for instance; it has links to all the stars and planets, and the Risa articles links to both Epsilon Ceti as a whole and Epsilon Ceti B, because that is the single star in the trinary system that it is in orbit of. Didn't know Sol/Sol system were stubs. I take it you wouldn't object to splitting them should they be expanded? --8of5 14:12, May 30, 2010 (UTC) :Thank you for the agreement -- I have tried to explain it to AT2Howell, but he doesn't seem to understand the variables involving categories and links. Some stars and systems have almost a dozen alternate names and it was getting impossible to keep all the links moving to the right place. Now that some specific categorizations exist, you can easier narrow down which article to direct traffic to. Probably, he's trying NOT to understand because he doesn't like me. :For binaries, the overall system name should be the reference point. IN the majority of our binaries (and trinaries and quadrinaries), we don't know names of the individual stars, so we leave those blank. The planet is in the binary system. The system is categorized as a system, not a star, since the individual stars are unnamed, and don't have their own articles. Risa is the rare case where we do know the name of the indivudal star, so the system has an overall article and so does the star. since the subordinate star has a system that only exists as a system within a larger system, the larger system takes precedence for links about the system (other planets, etc) as a whole, but the individual star is noted as the planet's primary where known . :Well, as for Sol, I just merged them a few days ago, so that might be counterproductive to the activity. Sol was a short text on the real-life physical star's makeup, while Sol system was a long list of planetary bodies with no descriptive text. Now, they work together pretty well. I suppose a split could occur, but the article has quite a bit of growing to do, as we have other large articles here that haven't been considered for splits on the basis of being overly detailed. -- Captain MKB 14:25, May 30, 2010 (UTC)